Just posted: Our review of Nikon's latest superzoom for its DX format SLRs, the AF-S DX Nikkor 18-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR. In the first of our series of lens reviews produced in partnership with DxOMark, we take a look at the longest-range zoom currently made for any interchangeable lens camera system. By current standards it's large and heavy for its class, and expensive too, but does its imaging performance make this all worthwhile? Read our review to find out.

Comments

This is a nice upgrade to the 18-200. It is the same size/weight as the 28-300 FF lens. The most annoying part of this lens is that it is rated at 3.5-5.6 f-stop...yet you are at the f/5.6 by the time you hit 50mm.... so 50-300mm is all f/5.6....Might as well make it a continuous f/5.6 lens so I don't have to mess with my settings when I go from 18-mm....Thanks Nikon for the extended range lens...thanks also for cheaping out and making the 50-300 all f/5.6....

To Andy and those who have had extensive use of this lens and the 18-200 nikon version, which one (of course very subjective) seems to have better overall IQ in the common zoom range? I guess theoretically it would be the shorter zoom but still interested in people's real life experiences with them.

Nice job, Andy. This kind of proves what we all expected! I was especially impressed by your willingness to point out the 1/80 sec problem. Pretty weird. I suppose some will love this lens, but I would never think of using it - ever. :) Oh yeah, and about the f stop of 5.6 going to t stop of 6.6? That's a bunch - but to be expected.

A too familiar conclusion for these types of "do-it-all" lenses from Nikon:■Very soft results at telephoto■Extreme distortion across most of the range (but can be corrected in-camera with recent SLRs)■Image stabilization not as effective as on similar lenses, especially at telephoto end■Flash shadowing at wideangle on smaller SLRs■Large, heavy and expensive compared to other superzooms

Optically, this is likely the best super zoom on the market. The questions about the stabilization and focus issues mentioned in the review could be deal killers though. Two things I love about my Nikon 18-200 are how well it focuses and how well the stabilization works.

I was under the impression that we will get immediately a lot of lenses ready for comparison in your newly rewritten widget. Did I get it wrong? I though you are going to populate it with DXO tests data, but there are just few lenses available for comparison now...

Comparing it to the "old" Sigma 18-250 review, there used to be fewer words, more numbers. I appreciate the words too, but more data points on the widgets were very useful. As an example, the Sigma is not the worst at the extreme tele, it is actually even worse at the long range before the extreme. The simple linear approximation on just 3 points would surely miss that.

I must say I'm very disappointed with DxO's lens testing chart - it doesn't allow me to visually determine lens sharpness at all. The old DPR chart (with its cross hatch boxes) was far better for this purpose.

I use the Tamron on DX and 28-300 on FX to "compliment" my full range of 2.8 zooms. If I'm honest, sometimes its better to have a compromise zoom than no shot at all. Especially on vacation or backpacking and the like.

My father does have a lot of very good glas but is also a big fan of the 18-200. Therefore he instantly bought the new 18-300 and sent it back after a few days. He will stick on his 18-200 vrII. The 18-300 is in his opinion optical worse, much heavier and much bigger.

A lens review is as important as a camera body review.So I welcome lens reviews with the expectations of its regularity as well as all posted tips.Thanks again DP! Many quotes refer to IQ of J1 V1 V2 being superior to the IQ of dslr.Could DP give us a verdict/debate about body and lenses of one system in comparison with other?Hope so!I also think about the smartphone/tablet lens.Anyway is just my opinion.Thanks again.

Truth be told, when it (AFS 18-300/3.5-56) came out, I figured the Tamron 18-270 PZD lens was going to fly off the shelves even quicker than they were ..... but that was the case, for Nikon at least, we still sold more of the Nickon 18-300's than the Tamron 18-270's (Nikon mount). Canon mount, however, is another case :)

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sigma_18-250_3p5-6p3_os_c16/ peevee1 - its old sigma - new sigma is marked MACRO and it come just 2-3 months ago - its shorter, lighter and looks like much sharper (other sites reviews) - Im still waiting for dpr review (unfortunately no local shops in my area got it so I can't check it myself)

No surprises here but a lesson for Nikon worshippers (I own a ton of Nikon stuff but do not worship). Every manufacturer has some dogs. These super zooms are wildly popular; I sold a ton of very soft Tamron super zooms to people who just wanted a small lens.

I never did get the point of superzoom lenses. If your object is to "never have to change lenses" then why not just buy a Panazonic FZ200 and call it a day?

The whole point behind buying a more expensive ILC is "changing lenses."

Even though zoom lenses have gotten better, good prime lenses really deliver the best image quality. And even among zoom lenses, a 3X zoom generally will perform a lot better than a 15X zoom will. This is simply because ANY zoom lens is a compromise, and the wider the range, the bigger the compromises involved.

Personally, I feel you are paying too large a premium for having the convenience of not changing lenses. A Nikon 2 lens kit would cover the same range at 1/4th the cost... and probably deliver better image quality.

I know lots of people, who own SLR and one superzoom. they have no idea even how to change lenses. I do not know why they even have SLR - good compact superzoom would serve them better and cheaper. Perhaps SLR makes them feel more like real photographers, as I have no other explanation.

Well Marty your are forgetting what the size of the sensor and electronics in the larger DX bodies add to the overall quality of the image. Also those super zoom lens on cameras like the FZ200 are inferior to the type of lens being reviewed here.

The real advantage of a "Superzoom" lens on a DSLR is the flexiblity they provide. They may not be the "best" for casual shooting, travel, street shooting, they offer real advantages.

"Also those super zoom lens on cameras like the FZ200 are inferior to the type of lens being reviewed here"I am not sure you can back your words with evidence. FZ200 is equipped with lens of superb quality.

You people are acting like if you buy this lens it's the only one you can ever use again. Sure some people will only use a super zoom but the real point of this lens for a DSLR is so you can use it in situations when it is not practical or convenient to change lenses and use something better the rest of the time. If you buy a compact fixed lens super zoom you are stuck with super zoom IQ. A DSLR lets you choose when you want to make that compromise. Being able to use the right lens for the right circumstance is the whole point of a camera with interchangeable lenses.

> "If your object is to "never have to change lenses""That's not my object, but I do use my 18-200 VR for those times when convenience is higher up on my list than any specific advantages I would have with some of my other lenses.

> "The whole point behind buying a more expensive ILC is "changing lenses.""While being one of the points of these cameras, changing lenses is not the "WHOLE point". Because one *can* change lenses, doesn't mean one *must* change lenses.

Obviously, this lens is ideal for some people and seems pretty expensive and heavy for others. I am in that second group, but that doesn't mean those in the first group are wrong.

Of course larger sensors have plenty of advantages over smaller ones. And if your object is convenience, then I would think a travel zoom or super zoom camera would be an ideal second camera for those snapshots.

If you want "DX quality" then you can get it at a far lower cost with almost the same versatility buy buying a Nikon 2 lens kit. How much trouble is it to make a lens change once in a while?

You can also get DX quality from a much smaller system. I think if you compare a Nikon D5100 to a Sony NEX 5N, the NEX does pretty well.

Everyone has different needs and preferences, which is why fixed lens cameras are still very popular. For some a Fuji X100 or Sony RX1 makes sense. But my point was... if you are buying an ILC, then you are paying for the ability to change lenses.

Your are still stuck on the mentality that it is either a super zoom or a 2 lens setup. Here is something that will blow your mind. You can have the super zoom for when you need the convenience, like say on a trip to the zoo with your family, AND a two lens set up for better IQ when changing lenses isn't' a big deal like when you are photographing by yourself.

The FZ200 although posing a tiny sensor and (good) evf only does have an excellent lens. A Leica 25-600mm f2.8 constant aperture through the whole range (although is sharper stopped down to f4). Of course what you wont get with a tiny senored camera is depth of field but the f2.8 will improve low light performance, allowing higher shutter speeds.This Nikon 18-300 is just too big and weighty.

I tried a Panasonic FZ150. What should I say...maybe, the experience was less than favorable...but I bought it because it was supposed to be the fastest of its kind. However, WB is off, shutter response is not fast enough, flash shoe doesn't behave as desired...the list goes on and on. What was I thinking!? There is no way a non-DSLR could ever satisfy me after I've been spoiled by DSLRs. I ended up buying a Sony HX30V to replace it, and I am extremely pleased with it.

Marty, if you agreed with all of us you wouldn't be asking these questions. A 2-zoom kit would require the changing of lenses, something I refuse to do at times! I will miss the shot! I have a DSLR because it is fast and performs to my expectations in high-ISO performance. I don't care if the corners aren't perfectly sharp or if there is a little distortion (which I find has no noticeable effect on my images). When I want something special, I use my 85mm F1.4 or my 70-200 F2.8 but mainly for their larger apertures, not so much for increased sharpness or reduced distortion.

My belief is that those who have purchased and used this lens, as I have, are happy with the results. (See the comments from the verified purchasers at B&H). Clearly it will not meet the needs of everyone, but no lens does. However, it appears that too may individuals are critical of the lens without ever using it. As I earlier indicated, it is now a favorite of mine. It performs quite well on my Fuji S5 and Nikon D300. The review should not discourage anyone from trying the lens if there is an interest. It can always be rented for a weekend before a decision to purchase is made.

I've just returned from a 3 week tour of eastern Europe with the 18-300 lens on a D7000. I have an 18-200 that I have used extensively since I bought my first DSLR (a D80). After 3000 shots I am very pleased with the results but I did notice something unusual which I don't think has been picked up in the period of this short review.There is a lag on the VR function (haven't measured it precisely) that is noticable particularly when changing from landscape to porttrait orientation. Sometimes I had to half push the shutter release a second time before it would stabilise but when it did it was magic. I have one shot, taken in low light at 300mm and 1/15 sec exposure - that is almost 5 stops better than without VR. The only problem with the lag is that it effects quick 'grab' shots which I do a lot of when touring. I'll be discussing this with Nikon to see if something can be done about the lag.I'll try and post some samples tonight on the lens forum.

I think DPR does not understand an important point about lens tests: The influence of sharpening and a Bayer-AA filter. DxO therefore publishes full MTF results and provide valuable data. DPR however ONLY publishes MTF50 results where sharpening was off. This is not smart AT ALL!

Either publish MTF20 results (such as contained in DxO results), or use sharpening (such as done by photozone) or at least use test equipment without a Bayer-AA filter (D800E, K-5IIs etc.).

Otherwise results will clip at about 50% the sensor resolution and this will prevent the more expensive lenses to be compared effectively.

MTF50 and MTF20 simply tell you slightly different things. MTF20 is close to 'resolution', MTF50 is more about perceived sharpness of the image as a whole. Is one automatically better than the other? That's a whole different question.

Your argument that MTF50 results should use sharpening seems odd though. All this does is inflate the MTF50 numbers in a systematic way. It doesn't make them any better comparable to each other.

There's certainly a strong case for using cameras without AA filters for testing lenses. But the problem is that you then have to do so for all systems, which isn't sensibly possible at the moment.

Ultimately no way of presenting data this complex is perfect. But if you really want to look at MTF20, you're free to follow the link to DxO's full data for each lens. That's what it's there for.

Andy, thanks for the reply. You may want to drop me an email to my regular email account to discuss this further. I would have to explain to you how MTF of a complex system is aggregated from component MTFs and why MTF50 as you decided to use it is neither useful nor in line with MTF analog measurements done on an optical bench. And why it is rather inefficient to compare lenses which are better than kit lenses.

You seem to be labouring under the false assumption that I don't understand what you're saying. And I agree MTF50 is rather inefficient at comparing 'good' lenses on a fine level. But that's not the point - it is very good at distinguishing 'good' from 'not-so-good'. I also don't think it's remotely relevent how closely these MTF measurements correspond to those performed using an optical bench. The methodology we use is designed purely for internal comparison, and it works perfectly well in that respect.

Andy, you may alternatively read my paper "Understanding image sharpness". I do indeed think that you miss a point here (like many actually do). If you think it through, you measure something like lens-MTF75 and call it sharpness. It isn't.

I have seen too many lenses with (unsharpened) rather moderate MTF50 but outstanding resolution (MTF20 or sharpened MTF50). And the other way round, esp. for kit lenses with a small number of lens elements.

You seem to be labouring under the false assumption that lenses rank the same when using MTF75, MTF50 or MTF20.

In the following question I am completely out of my field of expertise. I am wondering:

What is the point of this Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-300mm F3.5-5.6G ED VR ?It has VR, but it is not working on the long end in the shutter speeds you need. It works on a DSLR, but can not harvest the DSLR quality. It is an All in one lens, meaning people buy it for convenience, but it is so big and heavy that it is inconvenient. It is meant for the casual shooter, but it has so many issues which you need to be aware while shooting which usually only pros do. I hope I managed to write this without sounding cynical.

So here comes my question out of curiosity and ignorance: Would not be a dedicated small sensor super zoom camera serve the purpose better ? Or who would buy this thing doing what ? Nikon usually makes sense to me. What am I not getting ? Why reboot the lens review with this thing ? I am really curious :-)

"Why reboot the lens reviews with this thing?" We had to start somewhere, superzooms are popular, and we didn't know how it would perform before we started. That, after all, is what reviews are all about.

And while I appreciate your effort to stay away from cynical tone (which is quite rare in the current insultation-infested communication style), I cannot resist the temptation to be cynical myself:

Superzoom lens are mostly for those folk who base their appreciation of owning a DSLR not on its photographic (IQ or DOF or lowlight performance) merits, but rather on other benefits (mostly social ones) associated with its ownership. Yet they want to have a perceived convenience of all-in-one package. In this respect an above average price tag of such a lens is surely not discouraging for this class of prospective buyers.

On the other hand, operating a small sensor camera superzooms have become somewhat of a social stigma lately. Nobody wants to be seen with one !

Indeed, lens reviews are more valuable for choosing between poor lenses like these than they are for evaluating good ones.

Anyone thinking of buying the 18-300 has a pretty good idea going in that they are giving up many things for the zoom range, this review tells them precisely what they will face, helping them make an informed decision.

A review of something like a 50mm F1.8, on the other hand, is much less useful. Of course it will test extremely well, and even if there is any measurable difference between one 50mm prime lens and another the differences will not be "field relevant". One's choice of 50mm can comfortably be left to personal preference.

Thanks to all replies. They triggered interesting thought processes. Will dwell on this and get back in case I found something interesting to say. I very much agree with all three of you and appreciate your time. Especially Richard's reply was most enlightening to me! I myself restraint from buying a super-zoom after reading in lens reviews just how bad they are. I have forgotten why I do not consider super-zooms. Thanks for this reminder.

About etiquette in this forumI on and off am responsible for a facebook forum. In the beginning the tone was as bad as in here. When I can take the time to post I did same style as do in here. Showing how to say what you have to say but remain polite all the time without holding back your opinion. Through leading by example I changed the tone within months and increased the reader base from hundreds to thousands. How polite a group is depends on its leadership. Sadly I see none in here. I hope more people who know etiquette will show more examples.

I am glad lens reviews are back. The improved test result widget is indeed very nice and useful to develop a feel for the lens without actually shooting it. Now I am hoping for many lens reviews. It is a pity however that you could not manage backwards compare-ability with your existing lens reviews. In order the gauge the quality of a lens by studying its test result widget representation, it would have helped to first study one or better several representations of lenses one owns and is intimately familiar with. Then after developed a feel for the representation to move on to the lens one is considering to buy. Now with a lens data base of 1 lens this ( which I do not own ) this lens review system needs to grow at least 100 review so I have a chance at least 2 of my lenses are in it. I also want to caution that in the past the dpreview result were sometimes inconsistent with http://www.photozone.de/reviews results, which usually match my personal experience very nicely.

Lenses are something of a hobby for me. Its geeky and not really relevant to taking good photos, but I enjoy trying to get a feel for influence the optical design has on the image.

At the end of the day I conclude it is not worth trying to measure lenses, except to evaluate a baseline level of performance. Measurements separate good lenses from poor ones, but does not help identify a great one from the ranks of of the merely good.

Partly because what makes a great lens great is subjective, and mostly because what makes a great lens great is at any rate not simply more of what makes a good lens good.

A sharp lens with low distortion is good. A very sharp lens with very low distortion is not necessarily great. It doesn't scale like that. At a given point you start to look for different factors, like contrast and color and out of focus rendering, and, to get down to it, nothing more and nothing less than how much you like the final result.

@ RichardIndeed. Thanks for bringing this up. All the time I was thinking that this widget is real nice, but I had the feeling I would not trust dpreview but would go back to photozone.de. It disturbed me because I wanted to like this lens review here, yet I could not shake this feeling. You put the finger on it why that is: In photozone they pay attention to all these other factors, such as local and global contrast, color rendition and bokeh, purple fringing, longitudinal shift, etc. On top of it the writer is a decent photographer himself. He shoot with the lens real life and comments what he sees. His comments are very much in line with my perception of a great lens, thus his findings are very consistent with mine, thus I trust their review on lenses which I have no access to. I need to dwell more on this. Great inspiration. Thanks again Richard!

Yeah, different class lenses so it really isn't fair. However, I have a Samsung NX 18-200 mm and it is the same as the Nikon, it hits f/6.3 way too fast. However, it has a nice range, focuses fast, and is fairly compact.

That´s what I wanted to say: the aperture border figures may be similar, but the course may differ significantly. When shooting with the telezoom, I use mainly the lengths with best aperture value (relative to focal length), i.e. 107mm (f4) and 190mm (f4,5).

That's just how variable aperture zoom lenses work. The middle of the aperture range is available only in the widest third of the zoom range.

Good that you pointed it out though. Most people tend to just read the first number in the aperture range and don't think about what will be available over the range of focal lengths they will typically use.

Pro Tip: In addition to all their other failings, superzooms are deathly slow.

Dinosaur! Even it is a brand new lens, I felt it like a dinosaur for yesteryears.. Let me explain.

A short years ago when the mirrorless and compact superzoom digicams were not available, the 18-300mm would have made ome sense for people with DSLRs. I would not argue the potential IQ for a DSLR/18-300mm combo, when compared to such compact superzooms such as the Nikon P510 or Sony HX20V, would be better. But the compact superzooms are much more likely to be used because of their sizes, and let's be honest, more practical to be used for all occasions.

I seriously doubt the user of 18-300mm would have many successful shots at 300mm; and for those who know how to shoot, probably would be disappointed at its soft IQ at the long end. So basically, one is to carry an extra dead weight for the "reach" of, say 150-300mm.

It's kind of like thinking of our presidentail candidates: one one hand, we wish for a person who is more than a superman.

@Andy: the question is, how many succesful shots will you have on 300mm when stopped down (with lets say f8 and acceptable ISO the times will be too slow for a decently sharp picture). I know what I am saying, I have a 55-300/f4-5,8 telezoom and even during a sunny day the times are sufiicient only to have f5,8.

handheld or tripod? DPR says that the VR is effective down to 1/160th sec handheld, and the test image DPR shot at 1/640th F5.6 ISO 200 could be taken at F8 with either 1/320th ISO200 or 1/640th ISO400

All in all, that's a realistic review. In reality, it's a lot of fun to work with the 18-300. My hands are large enough to handle a D7000 with this kind of lens a day long. In-camera correction of distortion works OK, and in most cases, a small amount of remaining barrel distortion is benefitial on wideangle. Use DxO or whatever to completely correct this. Use 18-200 if your hands are not large. Use dedicated primes for low light or maximum quality. The stabilisation issue described here... don't know, I will do some tests. At 300 mm in many cases you will have mild to heavy blurring because of the atmosphere you are looking through, remember that.

You are absolutely right, dbscsp! The influence of the atmosphere on the quality of photos is obvious in photographing long distant objects. The minimum focusing distance is 0,45 meters at 300 mm. So,almost macro images with this lens don't have blurring at all. This is almost allways forgotton in these analysis.

Atmospheric blurring will be visible in long shots, but in mid-range shots - maybe wildlife or sports - it's unlikely to be a problem. The IS problem around 1/80sec, however, can affect shots taken at any distance.

Remember also that very few IS systems work well for macro work at all. For this you need to be able to detect and correct translational movement, i.e. the lens's entrance pupil changing position relative to the subject. Only Canon's 'Hybrid IS' and Olympus's '5-axis' IS on the E-M5 are designed to counter this. So it would be a mistake to expect any superzoom to be much good for hand-held macro at slower shutter speeds.

I'm not saying you can't get good and detailed macro shots with this lens - after all one of the Pros in the review is 'Decent close-up capability'. I'm just saying that you can't assume the VR system will work anywhere near as well at these high magnifications. But this doesn't matter if you have lots of light, or use a tripod.

That sounds like shutter vibration that the IS system isn't correcting for. Don't know if they could fix that in firmware, best way might be to have the camera avoid those shutter speeds. Reminds me of my K-7...

I dunno, call me skeptical, I just cannot believe VR could ever work effectively at such focal lengths, the adjustments it has to do are too large.

Or more precisely: lets say the handheld limit for critical sharpness at 450mm eff. is 1/1000s (even that is pushing it!) so if VR gives 2 stops, it might work down to 1/250s. I could not imagine VR being able to correct camera shake at any slower speed than that...

This lens brings to mind the great clippers launched at the dawn of the steamship age.

It’s bigger, more sophisticated, and more expensive than any previous product of its type, yet all that engineering effort and cost is arguably wasted, since an extreme zoom ratio is more easily obtained on a smaller sensor and with software-corrected distortion.

Yes, it’s f/5.6 at the long end, which puts an impressive number of photons on the large DX sensor. Does anyone want it, though, when that comes with a weight of 830 grams and a cost of $1k?

Some will, of course, but to me a much smaller lens with lower light throughput and better optical performance, with a smaller image circle, would make much more sense.

There still isn't any truly affordable full frame cameras. When you can get full frame for a MSRP of $1200-$1500 it WILL be the beginning of the end of DX DSLRs. DX is and always was a compromise on IQ to get the price down and more recently to get the size of the camera down.

I think what will happen in 5-10 years is that the $500-$1000 price point consumer, "soccer mom" DSLRs will be replaced with DX mirroless and DSLRs will be marketed to the enthusiasts/pros, all be FX, and start at $1200-$1500.

With mirrorless options getting better and better DSLRs need something to set them apart and make the extra size and weight worth it. As mirrorless cameras get more capable increasingly it will only be the enthusiast and pros who will lug a DSLR around. So FX and starting the base model with features similar to the D7000 is the best option IMO. Especially with the Nikon 1 series not just capable of but excelling at action photography, a domain that was previously exclusive to DSLRs.

Main advantage of APS-C (stop using Nikon's marketing BS!) is reach - you can get relatively small lens with narrow field of view and ergonomics of a true DSLR (something no mirrorless can offer, not even OM-D). Also right now APS-C lenses cover the same focal equivalents as Full Frames while using only a "sweet spot" on FF lenses (no more crazy vignetting or very blurred edges) so it's a win-win, not a "compromise of a quality". I got FF body and somehow can't see APS-C bodies disappear any time soon - they have great advantages over FF and IMHO offer far better balance of ergonomics-image quality-price-size factors then either: FF bodies or Mirrorless.

This might seem an odd comment, but... 75% seems a bit high for a lens that isn't very good, just less bad than the competition.

How do you plan to scale lens scores? Is it going to be "relative to it's class", meaning above average but unspectacular lenses of any kind will get 75%? Or is it an absolute scale, so premium macro lenses are going to get more than 95% and Lomos less than 50%?

For what it's worth, I think a single scale would be best. That way a potential buyer gets some idea of what they'd lose by buying a superzoom instead of a two zoom set, or a 24-70/2.8 instead of primes.

Of course, it's entirely clear from the text what the story is, and some might say that anyone who only looks at the numbers deserves what they get. But the fact remains some people will just look at the numbers, especially if preparing a shortlist.

The only sensible way to look at these ratings are "within the class of similar products." No one thinks a compact P&S camera that gets a 75% rating can produce results as good as a DSLR that gets a 75%, and the same theory applies to lenses.

This $1400 lens got a 75% "in the superzoom lens category." A $100 50mm prime lens will blow it away at 50mm. But the cheaper better lens will not have the same range.

Commercial considerations dictate that dpreview can not score a perfectly good brand name superzoom 35% just because its not as sharp as cheap standard prime. Lets be realistic here: it would be unfair to do so for any standpoint.

Scoring lenses is a bad idea. Period. However you people ask for it, so it will be done. So enjoy griping over the numbers and methods, that's part of the deal.

Score is a subjective evaluation of the relative worth of the product in comparison with its peers. So you will see cheap lenses outscore expensive ones, poor zooms outscore razor sharp primies. That's the reality, you'll all have to deal with that too.

Was the review good?It says VR was not as effective at 300mm as shorter focal lengths, but used a constant focus distance, not allowing for the obvious magnification increase at 300mm. Safe hand held speeds increase with image magnification - with any focal length.Nikon indicate in the 105 VR instructions a subject 8 feet wide or narrower needs 1 shutter speed faster for sharp results. This implies a need for 2 speeds faster by 4 feet wide and so on.Increased magnification at 300mm same focus distance relative to 28mm leaves less VR benefit available for camera shake reduction.The review gives a fair summary of the VR results a relative novice might get. An advanced worker might know about the image magnification issue using VR.Was there a slight tendency to misfocus at 300mm? The example shown used a fine detail subject with which all Nikon DSLR instructions indicate AF may not be particularly accurate. Was the reviewer paying enough attention to the quality of the AF target?

You've clearly not read the text about the stabilisation testing, which states that the 300mm tests used a longer distance. Nor have you noticed that the criticism is highly specific, and based on an inability to stabilize properly at 1/80sec. This is a clear difference to other lenses I've tested using exactly the same methodology.

As for misfocusing, that was consistent across a large number of real-world shots, using 2 different lenses. The sample shown simply illustrates it particularly well. But while the 100% crops show fine low-contrast detail, the image itself clearly has plenty of high-contrast patterns for the AF system to work with, and that's what I aimed at when focusing. (I've done this stuff before, you know.)

That's an interesting implication you made here. Does this mean that a subject 2' wide would need 4 speeds more? 1' = 8 speeds? Say you want to shoot a one inch object. Simple calculation reveals that you need 2^96 more speeds. This is a mind boggling number of speeds, more than there is stars in the entire universe and by several orders of magnitude. Do you have a camera that fast?

You'll have to ignore Lenard. He is of the opinion that a Nikon DSLR can only focus accurately on a perfect target. Of course this would make them all useless for real world use and is easily demonstrated not to be true but that doesn't deter him from endlessly blaming the AF target, no matter what it is, when someone suggests their camera missed focus.

I purchased this lens, and sold my Tamron 18-270 PZD. Nikkor has much, much better quality of images. Together with the D7000. And many of my friends in Finland do have the same opinion. Maybe this review is a little bit misleadind? Ia all, good job from DP anywhy.

Just because there are other budget lenses with similar range doesn't mean that this has to be the same. In fact it means the opposite. You even name cause and result in the same sentence, as being big and heavy doesn't mean they pour concrete in it, it means it actually contains more. Meaning less compromises, bigger production process, more costs. That makes it relatively EXPENSIVE, but certainly not overpriced. There are lenses out there half as complex as this costing €1200, just because the market says so. Worth it or not, it is not overpriced. Partly thanks to the tin cans already out there.

I am sorry to see that the review of the lens was not really a positive one. I have used it since July 2012, and while it does not rival the pro lenses, it has performed wondefully as an all-around lens, especially for family and vacations pictures. I also have the 24-70 (2.8) and 70-200 (2.8(VI), but because of its convenience and performance, the 18-300 has become a favorite. Try this lens with the Fuji S5 and you will be quite pleased.

I can only agree. For someone like me who dislikes changing lenses (chance of dust, missing shots) it also means a two-camera setup. This lens can't come up with the goods on a modern sensor, though, it is good to have a definitive review to point this out.

Yeah right try lugging two bodies or changing lenses while chasing your kids around a zoo or amusement park. Every zoom is a compromise between convenience and IQ. This lens is just weighted more toward the convenience side and is a perfectly good option if changing lenses or lugging around a bunch of them is not practical. This lens is not over priced or too heavy considering it covers a focal range you would need like 2-3 different lenses to cover if you didn't use it.

If you're looking for convenience and don't give a flip about image quality, why not just get the Panasonic FZ200...which, btw, will give you better image quality at a significantly lower cost. Hell, it costs 1/2 what this costs, and you get a free camera thrown in, to boot!

Great to see lens reviews make a return to dpreview, to see photographs of Tower Bridge and the surrounding area again, the first review reads well and has lots of good technical data. Kudos Andy and the rest of the team.

Good to see you here visiting your creation, Mr. Askey. I hope you're as a thrilled to see the return of detailed lens evaluations as I am. The hiatus was tough to get through, but the resulting review format looks promising, with excellent graphical displays and no shortage of useful info. Thanks, dpr.

But please remember that not every tablet is an iPad. Testing the site on Android and Windows 8 models is also important. I have a Nexus 7 and often run into features (not necessarily on dpr) that don't work right on the Chrome browser standard to current Android tablets.

I am only familiar with Sony dslrs and they are starting to have lens correction on jpegs but not raw. Are other cameras also set up this way or are raws also corrected? Will this be included in the review; the reason I'm asking is value of lens, obviously it costs more to produce a good lens than a cheap one corrected by soft ware.

example for nikon if you use view or capture nx the lens profile is automatically turn on. With the same raw file on ligtroom4 you see vigetting ca, so you have to turn it on manually. dxomark own software you have to download the lens profile all the time.

Large sensor superzooms are a magnitude more difficult, no doubt the PLEICA will do better with edge-to-edge sharpness. Not to mention size and weight. If you can find a 4/3 camera with a sensor (and DoF, DR, Clarity, Color, Noise) that's good enough for you than by all means go for it, because performance-wise it is (m)4/3's only weakness, if at all.

The Leica Q2 is a fixed-lens, full-frame camera sporting a new 47.3MP sensor and a sharp, stabilized 28mm F1.7 Summilux lens. It's styled like a traditional Leica M rangefinder and replaces the hugely popular original Leica Q (Typ 116), launched in 2015.

Fujifilm's GFX 50R takes the image quality from the existing 50S model and wraps it in a new body with new controls and a lower price of entry. Is that enough to tempt you to pick one up for yourself? Find out how the GFX 50R performs in our full review.

The Mavic Air hits the sweet spot for many drone users, combining compact size with high performance and good image quality. Find out what makes it so useful, and why it might just be the best travel-friendly drone on the market today.

Latest buying guides

If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that while they're a bit older, still offer a lot of bang for the buck.

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Sony mirrorlses cameras in several categories to make your decisions easier.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Canon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.

Montana judge Dana L. Christensen has ruled the Republican National Committee did not infringe upon the copyright of photographer Erika Peterman after they took a photo from a Democratic candidate's Facebook page without permission and altered it to use in a derogatory promotional mailer.

Leica recently announced the Q2, a digital rangefinder with a fixed 28mm F1.7 lens. It's a heck of a lot of fun to shoot with, but is it right for you? Based on our time with the camera, and its specifications, we've examined how well-suited it is for common photography use-cases.

Now that our Panasonic Lumix S1R has final firmware, we couldn't wait to get out shooting with it - and we also tried the high-res mode, which combines files to get 187 megapixel images. Because sometimes, 47 megapixels just isn't enough.

Drones can be useful tools in urban areas, where they're utilized for everything from news reporting to building inspections, but flying in these areas requires careful preparation. Here's what you need to know to do so safely.